155 



One additional area which obviously needs some attention is the relationship of 

 fishery management measures adopted pursuant to the Act and other federal envi- 

 ronmental statutes and regulations. For example, the statutory and regulatory re- 

 quirements for timelines and analyses under the Act and NEPA are not consistent, 

 and sometimes cause serious bureaucratic delays. Congress should look to reconcile 

 the requirements for analyses and schedules under the Act with other appropriate 

 federal statutes to streamline the process and make it more consistent. 



SUMMARY 



1. Strengthen the Conservation Standards in the Act 



Congress should strengthen the hand of the Councils and give a clear signal to 

 fishery managers regarding conservation of our nation's fishery resources. Because 

 of the way NMFS is interpreting the Act and the national standards, bycatch and 

 discards are treated more as a cost of doing business than as a form of waste. Con- 

 servation and management of our common property fisheries resources must ad- 

 dress the broader issues of discards and waste, and embrace the concept of wise use. 



The State of Alaska urges the Congress to: 



• Strengthen the conservation provisions in the Act to address waste and con- 

 servation issues. The purposes and national standards of the MFCMA set the stand- 

 ard for fisheries management and utilization. Conservation of our fisheries re- 

 sources should be the primary purpose of the Act, and there should be a new na- 

 tional standard setting conservation as the first priority for fishery management 

 plans. 



• Adopt provisions in the Act setting the goal of eliminating "economic discards" 

 to achieve full utilization harvested fishery resources, and require fishery manage- 

 ment plans be modified to set out programs for reaching this goal in a specified 

 timeframe. 



• Adopt provisions in the Act to control, reduce, and minimize bycatch in our na- 

 tion's fisheries, and include measures to give priority to the use of fishing gear, or 

 fishing practices which result in the lowest bycatch for the given harvest 01 a par- 

 ticular target species. 



2. Support the Nation's Coastal Communities and the Shoreside Economy 



Fisheries play a significant role in the economy and way of life in many of the 

 Nation's coastal communities. In Alaska, fisheries are the lifeblood of many of our 

 coastal towns and villages. It is important that we, as a nation, maintain and en- 

 hance these economic opportunities in our communities. The North Pacific Fishery 

 Management Council's CDQ program offers a new and innovative approach to devel- 

 oping local, fisheries based economies. 



The State of Alaska believes that the goal of achieving economic efficiency in the 

 harvest of our fishery resources is important, but should be balanced along with the 

 factors of full utilization and wise use of the resource, the need for balance among 

 the various segments of the industry, the desirability of maintaining diversity in the 

 fishery and the industry, and the economic and social needs of our coastal commu- 

 nities. The Act should be amended to require this balance, minimize preemption of 

 one sector of the industry over another, and reinforce the national intent to protect 

 and enhance the economies of our coastal fishing communities. 



3. Strengthen the Council Process 



In promulgating a comprehensive national fishery policy in 1976, the Congress 

 had the wisdom to keep the day-to-day management of EEZ fisheries in the regions 

 where the fisheries occur. The system of eight Fishery Management Councils puts 

 decision-making where it belongs — where the decision-makers are accountable to the 

 fishermen and communities affected. 



Rigorous implementation of existing law regarding financial disclosure and Coun- 

 cil appointments will address the issues raised regarding conflict of interest on the 

 Councils. We urge you to reaffirm this system. In addition, Sec. 304 should be 

 amended to restrict the Secretary's ability to arbitrarily override a Council rec- 

 ommendation without making detailed findings that the recommendation is sub- 

 stantially at odds with the ecological, biological, social, or economic evidence re- 

 viewed by the Council; is arbitrary or capricious; or lacks a rational connection to 

 the national standards. The Secretary should also be prohibited from substituting 

 his management plan for a Council recommendation unless such findings are made, 

 and the Council has been afforded an opportunity to address any deficiencies identi- 

 fied by the Secretary and has failed to do so. 



The statutory and regulatory requirements of the MFCMA and other federal stat- 

 utes and regulations need to be brought into consistency with each other. For exam- 

 ple, the statutory and regulatory requirements for timelines and analyses under the 



